Artificial Intelligence Allows Three Ages of Ralph to Promote His Next Two Blogs on the Connection Between Plato’s Cave and E-Discovery
I created the three videos shown below while watching the Superbowl last night. It’s easy now to create talking “still pictures” using online software. I used Di-D.com’s software trial to make all three for free. I will purchase the base subscription, but please don’t take this as an endorsement. It is just the first one I tried and I liked how it worked. These are my pictures only because who else would agree to my shameless use of their likeness. By the way, I tried to use a famous person’s picture, just as an experiment, and Di-D.com would not permit that. Smart.
It is my hope that these AI generated videos will fulfill their intent and help persuade you to read my forthcoming blogs. They are inspired by one of my heroes, Socrates, and his immortal Analogy of the Cave. In that Dialogue he posed a timeless question, as relevant today as in Ancient Greece. What is real? What is not? I have been pondering Socrates’ thoughts and writings for many years. Still am. Take a minute, relax, and watch these short, fake videos made from three real photographs. They all appear to be me. But are they really?
This entry was posted on Monday, February 13th, 2023 at 8:06 pm and is filed under Lawyers Duties. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One Response to Artificial Intelligence Allows Three Ages of Ralph to Promote His Next Two Blogs on the Connection Between Plato’s Cave and E-Discovery
Ralph Losey is an Arbitrator, Special Master, Mediator of Computer Law Disputes and Practicing Attorney, partner in LOSEY PLLC. Losey is a high tech law firm with three Loseys and a bunch of other cool lawyers. We handle projects, deals, IP of all kinds all over the world, plus litigation all over the U.S. For more details of Ralph's background, Click Here
All opinions expressed here are his own, and not those of his firm or clients. No legal advice is provided on this web and should not be construed as such.
Ralph has long been a leader of the world's tech lawyers. He has presented at hundreds of legal conferences and CLEs around the world. Ralph has written over two million words on e-discovery and tech-law subjects, including seven books.
Ralph has been involved with computers, software, legal hacking and the law since 1980. Ralph has the highest peer AV rating as a lawyer and was selected as a Best Lawyer in America in four categories: Commercial Litigation; E-Discovery and Information Management Law; Information Technology Law; and, Employment Law - Management.
Ralph is the proud father of two children, Eva Losey Grossman, and Adam Losey, a lawyer with incredible cyber expertise (married to another cyber expert lawyer, Catherine Losey), and best of all, husband since 1973 to Molly Friedman Losey, a mental health counselor in Winter Park.
1. Electronically stored information is generally subject to the same preservation and discovery requirements as other relevant information.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
3. As soon as practicable, parties should confer and seek to reach agreement regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as specific as possible; responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that is expected to be relevant to claims or defenses in reasonably anticipated or pending litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step or disproportionate steps to preserve each instance of relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information to be preserved and produced should be those readily accessible in the ordinary course. Only when electronically stored information is not available through such primary sources should parties move down a continuum of less accessible sources until the information requested to be preserved or produced is no longer proportional.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. Parties should take reasonable steps to safeguard electronically stored information, the disclosure or dissemination of which is subject to privileges, work product protections, privacy obligations, or other legally enforceable restrictions.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using technology and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria.
12. The production of electronically stored information should be made in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a that is reasonably usable given the nature of the electronically stored information and the proportional needs of the case.
13. The costs of preserving and producing relevant and proportionate electronically stored information ordinarily should be borne by the responding party.
14. The breach of a duty to preserve electronically stored information may be addressed by remedial measures, sanctions, or both: remedial measures are appropriate to cure prejudice; sanctions are appropriate only if a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the use of relevant electronically stored information.
e-Discovery Team ® 
[…] Article Link: Artificial Intelligence Allows Three Ages of Ralph to Promote His Next Two Blogs on the Connection B… […]
LikeLike